1. The first plaintiff in OS No.158 of 1987, on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi is the revision petitioner. The respondents are the defendants in that suit. The application filed by the first plaintiff in IA No.598 of 1992 to continue the suit as Power Agent of the legal representative of the deceased second plaintiff was dismissed on merits. The correctness of that order, dated 12. 1992 is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition.

.2. I heard Mr.C.S.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.G.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. According to Mr.C.S.Gopalakrishnan, the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge in the order under challenge are wholly erroneous in law and are not supported by Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore, it has to be necessarily set aside. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, though the power document was executed in Ceylon, yet it was executed on Indian non-judicial stamp paper to the value of Rs.5. The power document in this case is a special power and therefore, it has got to be engrossed only on Indian non-judic